December 15, 2024 • 10 mins
In a landmark decision, Australia's High Court has ruled that employers can be liable for causing an employee mental harm during the process of terminating their employment. It's a major workplace ruling that has caught the attention of Industrial Relations experts and HR departments. In today's podcast, we'll break down the facts of this case, what the High Court ultimately ruled, and why it matters to all Australian workplaces.
Hosts: Achol Arok and Sam Koslowski
Producer: Orla Maher
Want to support The Daily Aus? That's so kind! The best way to do that is to click ‘follow’ on Spotify or Apple and to leave us a five-star review. We would be so grateful.
The Daily Aus is a media company focused on delivering accessible and digestible news to young people. We are completely independent.
Want more from TDA?
Subscribe to The Daily Aus newsletter
Subscribe to The Daily Aus’ YouTube Channel
Have feedback for us?
We’re always looking for new ways to improve what we do. If you’ve got feedback, we’re all ears. Tell us here.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Already and this is the Daily This is the Daily os. Oh,
now it makes sense.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
Good morning and welcome to the Daily Oz. It is Monday,
the fifteenth of December.
Speaker 1 (00:18):
I'm Sam and I'm a child. Last week, the High
Court made a decision in a landmark case that will
no doubt have major implications for Australian employees. It opens
the door for workers to sue the employer for poor
mental health after being unfairly dismissed.
Speaker 2 (00:37):
It's funny because this almost seems like an inevitable part
of an unfair dismissal case. The idea that that would
be an unpleasant experience that would cause at least some
level of mental harm didn't really surprise me. It's an
incredibly traumatic experience for all parties involved, and it does
make sense that we're talking about mental harm in the
process of a dismissal. But now it's been tested in
(01:00):
front of Australia's highest court. And what I think we're
going to see after this decision which you're about to
take us through, is it becoming part of how employers
actually think about their behavior during the dismissal process. But
let's slow down. Why don't we take this in two
parts atrol. First, take me through the actual case and
what happened, and then let's look at what the High
(01:21):
Court had to say.
Speaker 1 (01:22):
Okay, so this is quite a long story that kind
of develops over the last.
Speaker 2 (01:25):
Five years, as these cases often are, YELP.
Speaker 1 (01:28):
So the High Court ruling last week's centers around the
unfair dismissal of a man called Adam Alisha. So he
worked for Vision Australia for almost a decade and in
his last role there he was an adaptive technology consultant
and that's relevant to the story. Alicia's role basically required
him to travel across Australia where he would set up
technology for vision impaired people in their homes and offices. Now,
(01:53):
the court document shows that towards the end of his
time that he wasn't really having a good time. He
was treated for anxiety and depress related to sound sensitivity issues,
or that's what court documents described them as, and that
was among other things such as workplace stress and issues
with his colleagues.
Speaker 2 (02:10):
Interesting, so he was having problems at work. He was
having these sound sensitivity issues which were directly impacting his
job working with sound and that was causing stress and
that was causing conflict with colleagues. Was that part of
the reason why he was actually fired?
Speaker 1 (02:26):
Well, yes and no. So in March twenty fifteen, while
on a work trip in rural Victoria, Alicia made a
noise complaint at the hotel he was staying at. Right,
But then after his stay, the hotel actually made a
complaint to his employer, alleging that he was aggressive and
intimidating during that interaction.
Speaker 2 (02:43):
Right, so, not a good stay at a hotel. He
complains about the sound, the hotel complains about his behavior.
It's then in vision Australia's court to respond. How did
they respond to that?
Speaker 1 (02:54):
So actually it wasn't immediately dealt with because he went
on annual leave.
Speaker 2 (02:58):
Right, Okay, So he goes on annual after this trip
which had some issues, and when he comes back that's
when the problems start exactly.
Speaker 1 (03:06):
So the issue was referred up to the HR department.
But what was interesting was their reaction to the complaint.
Management said it wasn't surprising and that his behavior had
gotten worse.
Speaker 2 (03:16):
And so I imagine there were conversations that were happening
whilst this employee was on his annual leave, he gets
back to work, management wants to have a chat with him.
How did that then pan out?
Speaker 1 (03:26):
Yeah, that's right. So on his first day back from
annual leave, he was given a letter explaining that he
was being stood down because of what happened at the hotel,
and this is where the legal issues seemed to arise.
So he was told to return to the office in
two days where he was going to be given the
opportunity to kind of explain himself. Along with that, Alicia
was given strict orders not to speak to any other
(03:47):
staff members or he would be immediately fired.
Speaker 2 (03:50):
It's interesting how this one has panned out, and I
guess we only know so much about it because it's
been detailed in the court documents. But he did get fired.
He didn't get fired for talking to his colleagues though.
Speaker 1 (04:01):
That's right. At the meeting, Alisha denied these allegations, but
he was still fired. We'll be back with a deep
dive after this short break.
Speaker 2 (04:12):
Okay, So we have an employee who's dismissed because of
what management says is a pattern of behavior that kind
of all accumulated in this incident at a hotel in Victoria.
I'm normally the person who kind of explains the legal
stuff here at TEDA, but you've really owned this story
and this reporting over the last week. I want you
to try and run with it. Talk me through what
(04:33):
happens then when Elisha brings a case of unfair dismissal
against Vision Australia to the courts.
Speaker 1 (04:40):
Okay, so I'll give you the spark Notes version without
all the legal jargon. So Alicia first filed an unfair
dismissal case with the Fairwek Commission, and that was a
couple months after he was fired.
Speaker 2 (04:50):
And what actually.
Speaker 1 (04:51):
Happened was Vision Australia settled and agreed to pay him
more than twenty seven thousand dollars.
Speaker 2 (04:56):
Which is not unusual for employers to try and kind
of make something go away and for it to not
eventuate into a year's long case. But that's exactly what's
happened here. They settled, but then it landed up back
in court.
Speaker 1 (05:08):
Right yeah, And that happened years later. So in twenty
twenty he launched a case in the Victorian Supreme Court
and basically he alleged that his termination breached his employment
contract and he argued that that firing caused depression and
left him with no capacity to work for the foreseeable future. Interesting,
So that was the lengthy process and what ended up
(05:31):
happening was the court ruled in his favor, calling the
dismissal unfair, unjust and wholly unreasonable, and Vision Australia was
ordered to pay him one point four million dollars.
Speaker 2 (05:43):
So it's interesting. It sounds like it's moved from a
case at the Fair Work Commission where it has settled
quite quickly, to really a more substantive case in the
Supreme Court, which is much more about Alicia's ability to
have ongoing employment. And he would have argued that because
of that traumatic experience, he's lost all of these earnings
that he could have gotten over the next couple of decades.
(06:05):
Even it's a big penalty for Vision Australia to pay
one point four million is a lot. What did they
say when that judgment was handed.
Speaker 1 (06:12):
Down, Well, they reacted like any other company that wouldn't
want to pay a former employee a million dollars. Yeah,
they actually appeal the decision and in court they argued
that Elisha shouldn't have been paid that much money for
two main reasons.
Speaker 2 (06:26):
Okay, And this is the really important bit. This forms
the basis of their appeal. Let's go through a number one.
Speaker 1 (06:32):
Okay, So number one, under Australian law, Alisha wasn't entitled
to damages for poor mental health resulting from the breach contract.
Speaker 2 (06:40):
Okay, So break that down. That means that Vision Australia
tried to argue there's nothing in Australian law that says
if you're sacked, you are entitled to damages if you
are mentally harmed because of that incident. Okay, So then
what's number two?
Speaker 1 (06:54):
So number two, Vision Australia basically tried to argue that
his poor mental health post firing was actually a product
of his pre existing mental health conditions.
Speaker 2 (07:04):
And we've talked through that before. That was part of
how Vision Australia kind of diagnosed his behavior at that
hotel and led to his sacking. So Vision Australia takes
this decision from the Supreme Court and appeals it. And
that's where we get to the High Court, which is
why we're talking about this today. We've just had a
decision from the High Court. Take me through what they said.
Speaker 1 (07:26):
Well, the High Court actually overturned vision Australia's appeal and
supported the original ruling, which was in favor of Alisia.
That original ruling basically called his firing a sham and
a disgrace.
Speaker 2 (07:38):
Okay, So that's really interesting because the High Court is
when the decisions are made that actually can't be appealed
anymore unless there's some sort of new evidence or anything.
What are the wider implications here? Then if we have
that decision?
Speaker 1 (07:51):
Yeah, you're absolutely right. So high Court judgments set legal precedents,
which are basically cases that established the rules and principal
subsequent cases with similar facts and issues must follow. And
usually these cases are the first of their.
Speaker 2 (08:05):
Kind, which kind of is what happened here.
Speaker 1 (08:07):
Absolutely and like you said, high court decisions can't be appealed,
so this basically is the definite end of a case
like this.
Speaker 2 (08:15):
And so in reality, what this means is that Australian workers,
because of this High Court decision, now have grounds to
sue for damages relating to a psychiatric injury after they're
dismissed unfairly. And it's a really interesting one, a toll,
because what often happens in these sorts of employment scenarios
where something is tested for the first time in the court.
(08:38):
Is that then we often find employers having to respond
to not get in danger themselves from this new rule
of the game essentially, So I wouldn't be surprised if
we see new policies in the workplace around how we
preserve the mental health of our employees when there is
an investigation into potential misbehavior or when there's disciplinary action
(08:59):
taken at the very extreme, when there is a dismissal process,
and that's not necessarily a bad thing. I mean, we
should be caring for the mental health of employees who
are going through something like that despite the fact the
relationship has broken down.
Speaker 1 (09:14):
Yeah, and it's taken us quite a while to get there,
But it will be interesting to see how kind of
workplace lawyers kind of respond to this major decision made
last week very interesting.
Speaker 2 (09:23):
We're going to keep tabs on this story because I
know this type of story really does have relevance to
a lot of people who are in the workforce, particularly
young people. A troll, thank you so much for taking
us through that you passed your legal bar exam, Flying Colors,
and thank you for joining us on the daily ours
this morning. If you're listening to this podcast on Spotify
or Apple, it would absolutely make our week. It was
(09:43):
my birthday last week. It would make my birthday if
you pressed subscribe or follow or get this episode five stars.
Let's climb up the ranks towards the end of the year.
If you're watching on YouTube, click follow on this channel
and we're going to have an incredible episode of journalism
for you every weekday Morning. Will be back again this
afternoon with the headlines until then, see you later.
Speaker 1 (10:07):
My name is Lily Maddon and I'm a proud Arunda
bunjelung Caalcuton woman from Gadighl Country. The Daily oz acknowledges
that this podcast is recorded on the lands of the
Gadighl people and pays respect to all Aboriginal and torrest
Rate island and nations. We pay our respects to the
first peoples of these countries, both past and present.
Already and this is the Daily This is the Daily os. Oh,
now it makes sense.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
Good morning and welcome to the Daily Oz. It is Monday,
the fifteenth of December.
Speaker 1 (00:18):
I'm Sam and I'm a child. Last week, the High
Court made a decision in a landmark case that will
no doubt have major implications for Australian employees. It opens
the door for workers to sue the employer for poor
mental health after being unfairly dismissed.
Speaker 2 (00:37):
It's funny because this almost seems like an inevitable part
of an unfair dismissal case. The idea that that would
be an unpleasant experience that would cause at least some
level of mental harm didn't really surprise me. It's an
incredibly traumatic experience for all parties involved, and it does
make sense that we're talking about mental harm in the
process of a dismissal. But now it's been tested in
(01:00):
front of Australia's highest court. And what I think we're
going to see after this decision which you're about to
take us through, is it becoming part of how employers
actually think about their behavior during the dismissal process. But
let's slow down. Why don't we take this in two
parts atrol. First, take me through the actual case and
what happened, and then let's look at what the High
(01:21):
Court had to say.
Speaker 1 (01:22):
Okay, so this is quite a long story that kind
of develops over the last.
Speaker 2 (01:25):
Five years, as these cases often are, YELP.
Speaker 1 (01:28):
So the High Court ruling last week's centers around the
unfair dismissal of a man called Adam Alisha. So he
worked for Vision Australia for almost a decade and in
his last role there he was an adaptive technology consultant
and that's relevant to the story. Alicia's role basically required
him to travel across Australia where he would set up
technology for vision impaired people in their homes and offices. Now,
(01:53):
the court document shows that towards the end of his
time that he wasn't really having a good time. He
was treated for anxiety and depress related to sound sensitivity issues,
or that's what court documents described them as, and that
was among other things such as workplace stress and issues
with his colleagues.
Speaker 2 (02:10):
Interesting, so he was having problems at work. He was
having these sound sensitivity issues which were directly impacting his
job working with sound and that was causing stress and
that was causing conflict with colleagues. Was that part of
the reason why he was actually fired?
Speaker 1 (02:26):
Well, yes and no. So in March twenty fifteen, while
on a work trip in rural Victoria, Alicia made a
noise complaint at the hotel he was staying at. Right,
But then after his stay, the hotel actually made a
complaint to his employer, alleging that he was aggressive and
intimidating during that interaction.
Speaker 2 (02:43):
Right, so, not a good stay at a hotel. He
complains about the sound, the hotel complains about his behavior.
It's then in vision Australia's court to respond. How did
they respond to that?
Speaker 1 (02:54):
So actually it wasn't immediately dealt with because he went
on annual leave.
Speaker 2 (02:58):
Right, Okay, So he goes on annual after this trip
which had some issues, and when he comes back that's
when the problems start exactly.
Speaker 1 (03:06):
So the issue was referred up to the HR department.
But what was interesting was their reaction to the complaint.
Management said it wasn't surprising and that his behavior had
gotten worse.
Speaker 2 (03:16):
And so I imagine there were conversations that were happening
whilst this employee was on his annual leave, he gets
back to work, management wants to have a chat with him.
How did that then pan out?
Speaker 1 (03:26):
Yeah, that's right. So on his first day back from
annual leave, he was given a letter explaining that he
was being stood down because of what happened at the hotel,
and this is where the legal issues seemed to arise.
So he was told to return to the office in
two days where he was going to be given the
opportunity to kind of explain himself. Along with that, Alicia
was given strict orders not to speak to any other
(03:47):
staff members or he would be immediately fired.
Speaker 2 (03:50):
It's interesting how this one has panned out, and I
guess we only know so much about it because it's
been detailed in the court documents. But he did get fired.
He didn't get fired for talking to his colleagues though.
Speaker 1 (04:01):
That's right. At the meeting, Alisha denied these allegations, but
he was still fired. We'll be back with a deep
dive after this short break.
Speaker 2 (04:12):
Okay, So we have an employee who's dismissed because of
what management says is a pattern of behavior that kind
of all accumulated in this incident at a hotel in Victoria.
I'm normally the person who kind of explains the legal
stuff here at TEDA, but you've really owned this story
and this reporting over the last week. I want you
to try and run with it. Talk me through what
(04:33):
happens then when Elisha brings a case of unfair dismissal
against Vision Australia to the courts.
Speaker 1 (04:40):
Okay, so I'll give you the spark Notes version without
all the legal jargon. So Alicia first filed an unfair
dismissal case with the Fairwek Commission, and that was a
couple months after he was fired.
Speaker 2 (04:50):
And what actually.
Speaker 1 (04:51):
Happened was Vision Australia settled and agreed to pay him
more than twenty seven thousand dollars.
Speaker 2 (04:56):
Which is not unusual for employers to try and kind
of make something go away and for it to not
eventuate into a year's long case. But that's exactly what's
happened here. They settled, but then it landed up back
in court.
Speaker 1 (05:08):
Right yeah, And that happened years later. So in twenty
twenty he launched a case in the Victorian Supreme Court
and basically he alleged that his termination breached his employment
contract and he argued that that firing caused depression and
left him with no capacity to work for the foreseeable future. Interesting,
So that was the lengthy process and what ended up
(05:31):
happening was the court ruled in his favor, calling the
dismissal unfair, unjust and wholly unreasonable, and Vision Australia was
ordered to pay him one point four million dollars.
Speaker 2 (05:43):
So it's interesting. It sounds like it's moved from a
case at the Fair Work Commission where it has settled
quite quickly, to really a more substantive case in the
Supreme Court, which is much more about Alicia's ability to
have ongoing employment. And he would have argued that because
of that traumatic experience, he's lost all of these earnings
that he could have gotten over the next couple of decades.
(06:05):
Even it's a big penalty for Vision Australia to pay
one point four million is a lot. What did they
say when that judgment was handed.
Speaker 1 (06:12):
Down, Well, they reacted like any other company that wouldn't
want to pay a former employee a million dollars. Yeah,
they actually appeal the decision and in court they argued
that Elisha shouldn't have been paid that much money for
two main reasons.
Speaker 2 (06:26):
Okay, And this is the really important bit. This forms
the basis of their appeal. Let's go through a number one.
Speaker 1 (06:32):
Okay, So number one, under Australian law, Alisha wasn't entitled
to damages for poor mental health resulting from the breach contract.
Speaker 2 (06:40):
Okay, So break that down. That means that Vision Australia
tried to argue there's nothing in Australian law that says
if you're sacked, you are entitled to damages if you
are mentally harmed because of that incident. Okay, So then
what's number two?
Speaker 1 (06:54):
So number two, Vision Australia basically tried to argue that
his poor mental health post firing was actually a product
of his pre existing mental health conditions.
Speaker 2 (07:04):
And we've talked through that before. That was part of
how Vision Australia kind of diagnosed his behavior at that
hotel and led to his sacking. So Vision Australia takes
this decision from the Supreme Court and appeals it. And
that's where we get to the High Court, which is
why we're talking about this today. We've just had a
decision from the High Court. Take me through what they said.
Speaker 1 (07:26):
Well, the High Court actually overturned vision Australia's appeal and
supported the original ruling, which was in favor of Alisia.
That original ruling basically called his firing a sham and
a disgrace.
Speaker 2 (07:38):
Okay, So that's really interesting because the High Court is
when the decisions are made that actually can't be appealed
anymore unless there's some sort of new evidence or anything.
What are the wider implications here? Then if we have
that decision?
Speaker 1 (07:51):
Yeah, you're absolutely right. So high Court judgments set legal precedents,
which are basically cases that established the rules and principal
subsequent cases with similar facts and issues must follow. And
usually these cases are the first of their.
Speaker 2 (08:05):
Kind, which kind of is what happened here.
Speaker 1 (08:07):
Absolutely and like you said, high court decisions can't be appealed,
so this basically is the definite end of a case
like this.
Speaker 2 (08:15):
And so in reality, what this means is that Australian workers,
because of this High Court decision, now have grounds to
sue for damages relating to a psychiatric injury after they're
dismissed unfairly. And it's a really interesting one, a toll,
because what often happens in these sorts of employment scenarios
where something is tested for the first time in the court.
(08:38):
Is that then we often find employers having to respond
to not get in danger themselves from this new rule
of the game essentially, So I wouldn't be surprised if
we see new policies in the workplace around how we
preserve the mental health of our employees when there is
an investigation into potential misbehavior or when there's disciplinary action
(08:59):
taken at the very extreme, when there is a dismissal process,
and that's not necessarily a bad thing. I mean, we
should be caring for the mental health of employees who
are going through something like that despite the fact the
relationship has broken down.
Speaker 1 (09:14):
Yeah, and it's taken us quite a while to get there,
But it will be interesting to see how kind of
workplace lawyers kind of respond to this major decision made
last week very interesting.
Speaker 2 (09:23):
We're going to keep tabs on this story because I
know this type of story really does have relevance to
a lot of people who are in the workforce, particularly
young people. A troll, thank you so much for taking
us through that you passed your legal bar exam, Flying Colors,
and thank you for joining us on the daily ours
this morning. If you're listening to this podcast on Spotify
or Apple, it would absolutely make our week. It was
(09:43):
my birthday last week. It would make my birthday if
you pressed subscribe or follow or get this episode five stars.
Let's climb up the ranks towards the end of the year.
If you're watching on YouTube, click follow on this channel
and we're going to have an incredible episode of journalism
for you every weekday Morning. Will be back again this
afternoon with the headlines until then, see you later.
Speaker 1 (10:07):
My name is Lily Maddon and I'm a proud Arunda
bunjelung Caalcuton woman from Gadighl Country. The Daily oz acknowledges
that this podcast is recorded on the lands of the
Gadighl people and pays respect to all Aboriginal and torrest
Rate island and nations. We pay our respects to the
first peoples of these countries, both past and present.
Popular Podcasts
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Decisions, Decisions
Welcome to "Decisions, Decisions," the podcast where boundaries are pushed, and conversations get candid! Join your favorite hosts, Mandii B and WeezyWTF, as they dive deep into the world of non-traditional relationships and explore the often-taboo topics surrounding dating, sex, and love. Every Monday, Mandii and Weezy invite you to unlearn the outdated narratives dictated by traditional patriarchal norms. With a blend of humor, vulnerability, and authenticity, they share their personal journeys navigating their 30s, tackling the complexities of modern relationships, and engaging in thought-provoking discussions that challenge societal expectations. From groundbreaking interviews with diverse guests to relatable stories that resonate with your experiences, "Decisions, Decisions" is your go-to source for open dialogue about what it truly means to love and connect in today's world. Get ready to reshape your understanding of relationships and embrace the freedom of authentic connections—tune in and join the conversation!